Would You Sign This Contract? "An employer can, at any time, dismiss an employee, without justification, and have that employee imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if the employee raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'violence'. In any event, an employer can dismiss an employee regardless of the circumstances, and at his sole discretion. He can fire him from his job, whenever he wishes, no matter how long the employee has served with the company, and even if the employee has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the employer can insist that the employee is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. An employer may further demand that the sacked employee must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the employer for some considerable time into the future." How many incidents of violence against employers would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all their employees? An enormous number, one would imagine. Now read this. It's the Lovers Contract. "A woman can, at any time, dismiss her male partner, without justification, and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for 'domestic violence'. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances, and at her sole discretion. She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner, whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family, and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house, and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future - and this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his." How many incidents of DOMESTIC violence against women would take place annually if these were the terms and conditions that were set for all their male partners? An enormous number, one would imagine. But, here in the West, they ARE the terms and conditions for their male partners! Is it really surprising to find, therefore, that the incidence of 'domestic violence' against women has hardly decreased in 20 years? I say 'hardly decreased', but no-one actually knows the true figures for domestic violence. The official figures are virtually meaningless in that they derive mostly from incidents that would paint us ALL as 'domestically violent'. For example, these days, shouting and name-calling are considered to be acts of domestic violence across most of the western world. And yet, clearly, they aren't! If they were, then just about the whole population would be indictable on the grounds of perpetually perpetrating acts of domestic violence. The reality is that domestic violence is now largely defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she happens to be experiencing at the time. And the problem with this - apart from the sheer unfairness of it all from the point of view of the male - is that her attitude is not something that is objectively definable, and neither is it 'fixed' - in the sense that a person's attitudes can change and fluctuate almost as much as the wind! And sometimes, of course, her real attitude isn't even 'observable' - such as when she's exaggerating, lying, or 'confused', perhaps through drink, drugs, medicines - and chemistry in general. Nevertheless, the number of body bags arising from domestic violence incidents, while not directly indicating the exact number of domestic violence incidents themselves, must surely reflect quite reasonably whether domestic violence is on the rise, or whether it is on the wane. As such, the number of intimate partner homicides can give us a good insight into the patterns and incidence of domestic violence. This number can certainly be calculated objectively, and a woman's attitude - about whether or not an act of domestic violence has actually taken place - becomes something of a trivial irrelevance when the victim is actually dead! Now, as a result mostly of feminist propaganda, prejudice and, frankly, perjury, about domestic violence for the past three decades, many countries have created increasingly draconian laws which have disempowered the male gender when it comes to their relationships - in fact, just as described in the Lovers Contract outlined above! (For a truly excellent short article on this see The Criminalisation of Fatherhood by Professor Stephen Baskerville.) But have these draconian laws worked? After all, billions upon billions of dollars have been spent annually on implementing them. If they have worked, then the number of female body bags filled by acts of male domestic violence should have decreased over this period. In fact, however, they have not! Well, not by much. What HAS decreased significantly is the number of MALE homicide victims of domestic violence! According to the figures from the US Justice Department (e.g. see here) female homicide victims killed by intimate partners in 1976 numbered around 1600. By 1998 this had fallen to about 1300. In contrast, the number of corresponding male victims during the same period fell from 1400 to around 500! It would seem, therefore, that 'feminist' policies have protected far more men from domestic violence than women! But, of course, this is not surprising. And there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, desperate women reacting impulsively do not now need to murder their partners to remove them from their homes. A call to the police will probably do the trick. Desperate men reacting impulsively, however, still have murder as one of the only real options if they 'absolutely must get rid of her - right now!' Secondly, the notion that feminists actually want to reduce domestic violence against women is laughable. They thrive on it. Without purportedly high domestic violence figures one of their main justifications for funding would dry up, and some of their most effective propaganda cries would begin to fall on deafer ears. If feminists were truly concerned with domestic violence against women they would request policies that reduced the pressures on men to act violently! For example, they would argue for social and legal mechanisms to which men could refer their complaints, and which would act on their behalf in a non-discriminatory manner so that there would be no 'need' for their violence. Instead, they have done the very opposite. They have imposed the Lovers Contract! To add to this, there is now also a plethora of social and legal agencies that provide support for women who are experiencing 'difficulties' within their domestic relationships right across the western world, but hardly any exist - NONE, in most places - to support men in similar circumstances. As a result of all this, desperate men, often deranged with anger, perhaps at the thought of unjustifiably losing their homes and their children (and having nowhere to turn for effective help) may well explode into violence, whereas women who are feeling just as hostile (though, usually, with lesser real justification, since they are hardly likely to lose their homes or their children) can happily avail themselves of free and aggressive professional support. Further, of course, women are calmed (and armed) with the comforting knowledge they will almost invariably win their cases. In short; women nowadays don't NEED to act violently. They can win hands down just by using the 'system'. And they know it. And this is why the number of male homicide victims has fallen dramatically, whereas that of female homicide victims has not. But, of course, not all 'domestic violence' incidents lead to homicide. (Indeed, as they are currently defined, 99.9999999% of such incidents can hardly lead to anything more than scowls!) However, the question still arises as to the true amount and severity of all the domestic violence that does NOT lead to homicide. Well, judging from the homicide figures, one must surely conclude that, if anything, non-homicide domestic violence against women has hardly decreased over the past two decades, whereas that against men has! But would this be a valid conclusion? If one regards homicides as a good indication of domestic violence levels then this must be so. And homicides must surely be a good indication of domestic violence levels when one considers that homicide is actually something of an 'end point' on the violence line. Putting this more chillingly: For every domestic homicide that actually takes place in any given year there are probably 1000 couples who get very close to experiencing one! And so it is that the argument that the domestic violence homicide rate will mirror fairly well the domestic violence NON-homicide rate seems to be a valid one. This - taken together with the actual homicide rates themselves - suggests that the greatest beneficiaries of feminist policies with regard to non-homicide domestic violence have been men. But, of course, even if true, this has come at a massive cost for ALL men; their almost total disempowerment through the Lovers Contract, and through all those agencies that provide assistance to women but whose services are denied to men. In reality, this unmasks part of the feminist agenda, because the policies that feminists would claim are designed to reduce domestic violence against women CLEARLY do nothing of the sort. If anything, they appear to reduce such violence against MEN! But feminist policies have never really been concerned with the reduction of violence against women. For feminists to succeed in reducing violence against women would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Their sole aim has always been - simply and blindly - to disempower men, regardless of the cost to women, and to society in general. Indeed, even as I write this, feminists are desperately trying to conceal from women the facts concerning the relationship between their likely success at reproduction and their age! And they almost managed to suppress these facts from coming to the attention of the public. This pathetic attempt to hide even MEDICAL facts must surely have everything to do with following the feminist 'agenda' and nothing to do with the REAL welfare of women. (For example, here's Marjie Lundstrom's article, Fertility Education is Offending Feminists, and here's one by Betsy Hart entitled, Science and the Sisterhood.) There is one other major factor worth considering when it comes to looking at the relationship between homicide and non-homicide domestic violence over the period in question. This, perhaps, can be described as ... 'comprising all of those factors which alter the likelihood of someone actually taking the 'controlled' and conscious decision to commit a homicide'. For example; has domestic homicide, in general, over the two decades in question, become an option that is more likely to achieve a prospective perpetrator's aims - or less? Well, given the tremendous advances in forensic and detection technology, as well as the increased public awareness of such matters - over this period - one would surely have to conclude that the chances of being caught are now very much greater than they were before. As such, the likelihood of people crossing that fateful threshold and actually committing a homicide - while hoping that they can get away with it - has probably decreased significantly. Statistically speaking, therefore, - and putting it rather simply - this means that people, most probably, now have to be much angrier before they finally lose their control, and kill. And this, in turn, would suggest that, while the OVERALL number of intimate partner homicides may well have actually decreased over the years, it is quite likely that the domestic violence levels themselves - the non-homicide levels that can rage and seethe just beneath the higher homicide thresholds - have actually increased! Further, such a notion would be consistent with our everyday perception that violence, in general, has increased over the past two decades or so. And so it is that while the homicides from domestic violence against women may well have decreased over the past two decades, the fact that this decrease has been somewhat marginal makes it seem quite likely that the overall NON-homicide domestic violence incidents against them may well have actually increased, and, possibly, quite substantially so! And the same, of course, would also be true for the number of such incidents against males. In fact, the increase of such non-homicide violence against males has probably been even greater, by far! - because society has now clearly developed an overriding willingness to forgive females for their acts of violence or homicide, whereas the same is not true for males. Females who commit such crimes are often seen as victims - and treated as such. There are therefore many more 'escape routes' for female murderers and many more possible 'justifications' which are now seen as legitimate excuses for women's non-homicidal violent acts - which, all in all, suggests that they probably do not have to be as 'deranged' as males in order to stumble into violence or homicide. In other words, they can afford to be more 'trigger happy'. Not only are they far more likely to pay a much lower price than would males who were performing similar acts, their 'domestic violence' actions are also far less likely even to be recorded as such by the police! The point here is that while it is true that, currently, far fewer men are killed by their partners, the 'corresponding' amount of NON-homicide domestic violence against them may well be maintained at a much higher level than is indicated by their death rates (compared to whatever may be so indicated by the female death rates) because the female perpetrators of violence can escape with far lower costs to themselves - at all levels - and, further, they can also easily avoid the ultimate act of murder by simply phoning the police and getting the professional protection services rolling. Putting this more simply; females can nowadays provoke, irritate, shout and aggress against their male partners with relative impunity. They do not need to kill them! They can maintain their levels of non-homicidal hostilities knowing that, whatever those levels may be, more or less, the price will remain relatively low. And so, for example, the fact that 500 males were eventually killed in 1998 compared to 1300 females does NOT indicate that females, correspondingly, and, in general, suffered just about over twice the amount of non-homicide domestic violence than that suffered by males. The low figures for male deaths are simply likely to reflect the fact that females can finally 'explode' by 'picking up their phones'. And this notion is also supported by the evidence. For example, part of this issue really hinges on the question of who, exactly, are the women who are actually picking up the phones!? Are they, statistically speaking, the ones fearing for their lives? Or are they the aggressive ones throwing out their partners? Well, if they are mostly the ones saving themselves from domestically-violent deaths, then the number of their deaths should have decreased over the years. But this hasn't really happened! On the other hand, if the women mostly picking up the phones are the aggressive ones who would, two decades ago, have killed instead, then it is the male deaths that would be reduced by having the phones in place. And this is EXACTLY what has happened. The conclusion must be, therefore, that, statistically speaking, the systems currently in place mostly aid and abet violent women who want to rid themselves of their partners and do very little for those women who are in genuine need of protection. And the evidence from women like Erin Pizzey - the very FOUNDER of the Women's Refuge organisation here in the UK - would also support this. Here's a quote from her ... "Most of the women arriving at the refuge centres were MORE violent, even toward their children, than were the men they were supposedly escaping from." It is also interesting to note that nearly all the OBJECTIVE research reveals that men and women are just about as bad as each other when it comes to perpetrating acts of domestic violence (e.g. see here) - with females actually more likely than males to be the FIRST to engage in a physical assault of some kind. You don't believe me!? Then watch the TV closely and see how many REAL LIFE slaps on the face men receive compared to women. Also, look at how lightly - if not humorously - REAL LIFE female violence against men is treated e.g. Bobbit jokes. And if the objective research doesn't convince you, nor, indeed, your very own eyes as you watch the TV screen, then go back to the actual homicide statistics. Whatever the reality with regard to non-homicide domestic violence, the actual intimate partner homicide rates can hardly be disputed. Prior to the draconian feminist laws and the Lovers Contract, the number of male and female intimate homicide victims in 1976 were 1400 and 1600 respectively. This suggests that males and females were not that dissimilar in terms of their propensities towards domestic violence. In fact, they appeared to be REMARKABLY SIMILAR! Now, however, the rates have dropped to 500 and 1300 respectively, and this DIVERGENCE of the figures clearly reveals that in those situations where the levels of violence are escalating dangerously close to homicide, MOST of those aggressing females who would have killed, can now just pick up their phones and win their battles, whereas aggressing males cannot. Feminists, of course, would hotly deny all this, and would aid themselves in this deception by using the following 'trick' to fool their gullible followers. They would look at the 500 male deaths and compare it to the 1300 female deaths and conclude that this is evidence for the fact that men, IN GENERAL, are more domestically violent than women. The problem with this argument, however, is this. If the relatively low 500 count for male victims reflects a lower propensity for females to engage in NON-homicide domestic violence, then the 1400 count of two decades ago must have reflected a much higher propensity! This would imply that women have become far less aggressive over the past two decades. But this flies in the face of everyday reality. There is no question AT ALL that women have become far more assertive and more aggressive over the recent years. Further, WHICHEVER way feminists interpret the data, it is clearly the case that their policies have not worked! Feminism has FAILED to solve the problem of domestic violence against women! And, further, the evidence clearly suggests that it is the person who has access to the phone - the one who can reach for help - who is the more likely to refrain from domestic violence. Thus, when the feminist lobby keeps arguing the case that men are more domestically violent than women, and, further, that the injuries against women are often more serious than is the case for men (and this is, indeed, true - just as the respective homicide rates would predict) it would be well to remind them that this would occur far less often if the male perpetrators were able to pick up their phones instead! Regretfully, however, the feminists just will not allow men to receive support in their times of domestic crises. They continually argue that they don't need such support despite the evidence showing that domestic violence against women would be reduced by this. And, as usual, the feminists have been given their way, and so there is hardly any support for men who need help in times of crisis. And this is yet further evidence that exposes the true agenda of feminism. It is NOT about protecting 'weak and vulnerable' women, it is about empowering the aggressive ones! There is one final point to be added to all this with regard to non-homicide domestic violence, and this is the way in which it is so prejudicially defined. As mentioned earlier, it tends to be defined by the woman's attitude to whatever she happens to be experiencing at the time. And so, for example, shouting, name-calling, pushing and shoving - extremely common and trivial events in themselves alone - can be sufficient to bring about the most draconian actions against men for 'domestic violence'. And this is true even when there is no evidence to support the woman's claims or when she's lying. Further, for example, when women make false or exaggerated accusations of 'abuse', whether allegedly against themselves or the children, or when they purposefully engage in activities denying the fathers access to their children, or when they have their men ejected from the homes under false pretences, well, the authorities simply do not categorise these acts as 'domestic violence' at all, even though they are crimes that are far, far worse than MOST of the acts which they do categorise as domestic violence. As one man described his situation recently, "Yes, I must have slapped her about five times over the last three months that we were together, but I was hit by her far more often. But that is nothing compared to what she's doing to me now. Every hour without my children is a slap in my face, and I haven't been allowed to see them for nearly six months." Well, that's a lot of 'slap-equivalents' over a six month period - about 2000 would be my guess. But they don't count AT ALL in the 'domestic violence figures'. Also, think on this. Threatening to withhold money from a woman in the UK can easily be considered an act of 'domestic violence'. Threatening that he will never see his children again is not! And yet, apart from serious physical injury, what could be more 'domestically' violent than being thrown out of your own home and cut off from your children!? The reality is, therefore, that while the objective ACADEMIC research shows that males and females are victims of non-homicide domestic violence in roughly equal rates, this is only the case because most of the WORST actions that women direct against men are simply not counted as acts of domestic violence by the researchers! And so, for example, calling HER names and 'insulting' HER counts as 'domestic violence', but kicking HIM out of his home and excluding HIM from his children doesn't! And so it is that the truth about non-homicide domestic violence is that, when one includes ALL those actions that can be legitimately counted as 'abusive'- and these should include those abuses by the state at the behest of women - males are BY FAR the majority of the victims of non-homicide domestic violence. And the evidence for this can be seen in the decisions of family courts and in the actions of Domestic Violence Units right across America, Canada and Europe, where, literally, millions of men, every year, are, for example, forcibly parted from their children and their homes. In summary, therefore, it seems clear that feminist policies and draconian law enforcement measures against males - which cost so many billions to implement annually - do very little to reduce domestic violence levels against women. In fact, they most probably increase them. And the domestic violence homicide statistics which provide clear evidence for this are utterly indisputable. Non-homicide domestic violence against women has, at the very least, remained at the same levels, whereas that against men has apparently gone down. But that against men has apparently 'gone down' only because the domestically-violent actions of women have largely been replaced by the domestically-violent actions taken by the state on their behalf. And it is only because the domestically-violent actions of the state are not actually categorised as 'domestic violence' that feminists can get away with their deceits concerning the realities surrounding this issue. Finally, it is worth remembering that this article has focused solely on the American data which are purported to enumerate accurately the domestic violence homicide rates - of which there are, currently, it would seem, about 2000 per year in total. But the total number of ALL homicides in America is around 13,000 per year (with about 10,000 male victims and about 3,000 female victims) and almost HALF of those relating to male victims remain unsolved! (The clear-up rate for homicides involving female victims is much higher because the government agencies, unsurprisingly, investigate them far more thoroughly.) And so it is that the number of male victims of DOMESTIC homicide is likely to be very much higher than the official figures would suggest. Indeed, it could be enormously higher. Nevertheless, the data from many western countries also support the notion that WOMEN are still the majority of victims when it comes to intimate partner homicides. For example, in the UK, there are currently around three times as many female victims of intimate partner homicides as males. And figures such as this simply reinforce the conclusion that feminist policies have achieved very little for women when it comes to domestic violence. |
by Karl Glasson |
The DesertLight Journal |